DG(SANCO)/ MR

Transcription

1 Response of the Competent Authorities of the United Kingdom to the recommendations of Mission Report ref. DG(SANCO)/ MR carried out from 02 to 18 September 2009 in order to evaluate the implementation of rules on animal welfare N. Recommendation Action Proposed by the Competent Authority 1 Take measures to ensure that all recommendations regarding laying hens from report 8044/2007, for which actions taken had not been adequate are effectively addressed and to ensure that the checks are performed on laying hen holdings with all systems of production in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of Directive 1999/74/EC, in accordance with Article 8.1 of Directive 1999/74/EC. See Appendix 1 [Comments on previous recommendations are in Appendix 1] Animal Health inspect all systems of laying hen production. The method of selection involves a risk based approach as required by 882/2004 EC. Before 2007 the selection process involved a specific requirement to ins The system was changed partly in response to previous recommendations made by the FVO in report 8044/2006 and to ensure that all systems of animal production are inspected as required by 2000/50EC. At present the database only allows recording a laying hen site as either a caged bird inspection or a non caged site inspection. It is not therefore possible to provide figures for barn, free range or other alternative system. The figures for the last 4 years are as follows: 2009 Page: 1

2 ANNEX B Response of the Competent Authorities of the United Kingdom to the recommendations of Mission Report ref. DG(SANCO)/ MR carried out from 02 to 18 September 2009 in order to evaluate the implementation of rules on animal welfare N. Recommendation Action Proposed by the Competent Authority 19 caged site inspections 366 other systems inspected Total cage site inspections 384 other systems Total cage sites 342 others Total 376 Page: 2

3 ANNEX B Response of the Competent Authorities of the United Kingdom to the recommendations of Mission Report ref. DG(SANCO)/ MR carried out from 02 to 18 September 2009 in order to evaluate the implementation of rules on animal welfare N. Recommendation Action Proposed by the Competent Authority 2006 (before cross compliance was introduced. 50 caged sites 329 others Total Take measures to ensure that enriched laying hen cages comply with the requirements of Article 6.1 and 6.2 of Directive 1999/74/EC. Animal Health has agreed to visit all known enriched cage production units which are already in production in GB to check capacity, feed trough provision and placement etc. This work is already underway with priority given to any sites which have not yet been visited or inspected by a veterinary officer. All such sites will be inspected by the end of June A training event for Animal Health/Egg Marketing Inspectorate staff is being arranged and written guidance is also being prepared on enriched cage assessment, so that all staff visiting enriched cage sites in the future can carry out the necessary checks. Given the significant financial commitment the industry it making to convert to enriched cages, we wish to ensure the guidance we give is definitive, so will be seeking clarification from the Commission as to the physical measuring of Page: 3

4 ANNEX B Response of the Competent Authorities of the United Kingdom to the recommendations of Mission Report ref. DG(SANCO)/ MR carried out from 02 to 18 September 2009 in order to evaluate the implementation of rules on animal welfare N. Recommendation Action Proposed by the Competent Authority 3 Take measures to ensure that all recommendations regarding animal welfare at transport from report 2008/6970, for which actions taken had not been adequate, are effectively addressed. 4 Take measures to ensure that the system put in place for approval of the vehicles ensure that the means of transport, for which the corrections had been requested, actually comply with the requirements set in Article 18.1(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, before authorisation is issued. 5 Take measures to ensure that when carrying out the checks of consignments with live animals, they also include the checks of the means of transport, to ensure their compliance, as required by Article 27.1 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005. enriched cages. From now on all enriched cage systems brought into production for the first time will be assessed at Registration. We are taking adequate measures to ensure these recommendations are effectively addressed. Appendix 2 details these measures. We accept that vehicles should be re-inspected where certain serious non-compliances are indentified at approval inspection and following inspection of the vehicle by enforcement bodies. Therefore, we have instructed our awarding bodies to put in place a system for re-inspection of vehicles where a major non-conformance such as the absence of a principle piece of equipment is found at the initial inspection or following subsequent inspection of the vehicle by enforcement bodies. We intend to continue with our current policy where minor noncompliances are reported i.e. where there are missing or faulty vehicular fixtures and fittings which have no animal welfare consequences. We do not believe re-inspection is justifiable in these circumstances. We accept that production of a valid certificate of vehicle approval cannot be accepted as a guarantee or endorsement of the vehicle being compliant with Regulation 1/2005 at the time of enforcement inspection. It is clear that modifications may have been made to the vehicle subsequent to its approval or that equipment/fittings may have since Page: 4

5 ANNEX B Response of the Competent Authorities of the United Kingdom to the recommendations of Mission Report ref. DG(SANCO)/ MR carried out from 02 to 18 September 2009 in order to evaluate the implementation of rules on animal welfare N. Recommendation Action Proposed by the Competent Authority become faulty and thus non-compliant. Animal Health is reminding inspectors through placing an updated checklist in its operational guidance manual that all inspections for enforcement include a physical check of the vehicle s equipment and functionality. We will also discuss the issue with LACORS and local authorities to ensure a uniformed approach. Page: 5

6 Appendix 1 ACTION PLAN Response of the Competent Authorities of the United Kingdom to Recommendation 1 of Mission Report ref. DG (SANCO)/ MR Take measures to ensure that all recommendations regarding laying hens from report 8044/2006, for which actions taken had not been adequate are effectively addressed and to ensure that the checks are performed on laying hen holdings with all systems of production in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of Directive 1999/74/EC, in accordance with Article 8.1 of Directive 1999/74/EC. Recommendation 1 Report 8044/2006 recommended that the monitoring of compliance in the laying hen sector (Directive 99/74/EC, Article 8) also takes account of the requirements of Article 3.1 of Regulation 882/2004. Action proposed by Competent Authority Animal Health carries out risk-based inspections using intelligence derived from results of previous inspections of the holding, the time elapsed since the last inspection and complaints or allegations of poor welfare. This is in accordance with Regulation 882/2004, Article 3.1 (a), (b) and (d). A system of follow-up visits to ensure previously recorded contraventions has been put in place. Animal Health inspect all systems of laying hen production. Before 2007 the selection process involved a specific requirement to inspect laying hen farms, pig farms and calf rearing farms. The system was changed partly in response to previous recommendations made by the FVO in report 8044/2006 and to ensure that all systems of animal production are inspected as required by 2000/50EC. At present the database only allows recording a laying hen site as either a caged bird inspection or a non caged site inspection. It is not therefore possible to provide figures for barn, free range or other alternative systems separately. The figures for the last 4 years are as

7 follows: caged site inspections 366 other systems inspected Total cage site inspections 384 other systems Total cage sites 342 others Total Report 8044/2006 recommended that regarding perches, a common position is adopted throughout the UK, in line with Article 4 (1) (1) (d) of Directive 99/74/EC (i.e. perches have to be considered as installations available in the third dimension) (before cross compliance was introduced). 50 caged sites 329 others Total 379 Directive 99/74/EC does not contain a definition of a perch, nor does it state that perches should be aerial. The 1995 Council of Europe recommendation on domestic fowl Appendix I - laying hens (on which Directive 99/74/EC was based) does not include a requirement for perches in the third dimension. As Directive 99/74/EC is a minimum standard Directive it is possible that regions of the UK may pass legislation through their Parliament or Assembly, or reach an interpretation of legislation, that varies from England. In practice, this happens very rarely, but perches is one such issue where Scotland and Northern Ireland have taken a different position to England and Wales. We continue to have concerns that suspended (aerial) perches may contribute to higher levels of bone injury in hens in non-cage systems and

8 current research at Bristol University has found that birds with access to these perches have higher prevalence of fractures than those without. 3 Report 8044/2006 recommended that cages meet the requirements of Directive 99/74/EC, in particular that the height is at least 35cm at any point (Directive 99/74/EC, Article 5.1.1). While further data is assessed on both the physical and behavioural aspects of the type of perch used in alternative systems, we continue to take note of the recitals of Directive 99/74/EC, which states that It is appropriate, while studies on the welfare of laying hens in various systems of rearing are carried out, to adopt provisions that allow the Member State to choose the most appropriate system or systems. Currently all the UK s efforts and those of industry s are committed to meeting the Directive 99/74/EC deadline of phasing out the use of conventional cages by It would not be reasonable for the industry to have to remove hens from conventional cages with extended fronts still in use, at the same time as making the huge financial commitment to convert to alternative systems. In 2008, Defra funded a very successful awareness campaign aimed at helping laying hen producers plan for the future and consider the options available to them when conventional cages are banned across the EU from 1 January Report 8044/2006 recommended that procedures for enforcement are followed, particularly in relation to the follow-up of cases of overstocking in battery cage farms (Regulation 882/2004, Article 55). [See Annex B and the response to Recommendation 2 of Mission Report ref. DG(SANCO)/ MR concerning extended enriched cages]. Animal Health carries out risk-based inspections using intelligence derived from results of previous inspections of the holding and complaints or allegations of poor welfare. Laying hen units, both cage and alternative systems, are included in these inspections. [See Annex B and the response to Recommendation 1 for data on inspections in the last four

9 years.] Since 2006, Animal Health must mark forward any premises where overstocking or any other noncompliance has been found for a follow-up visit; the timing of this followup is calculated by a risk assessment produced by the inspecting veterinary officer (VO). Local managers in Scotland and Team Leaders in England) are responsible for checking the work of their Veterinary Officers. The enriched cage site visited by the Mission in England has had a further inspection and the remaining birds are reported to be in good health. The maximum capacity issue on this site has been discussed with the owner and the new flock of birds will be stocked at a lower density. Veterinary Officers and Egg Marketing Inspectors will attend a training event (date to be confirmed) for those carrying out visits to laying hens units. Additional specific guidance on enriched cage assessment is also being prepared and existing guidance on all other laying hen systems is being updated Communications between EMI and veterinary staff are now regarded by Animal Health as satisfactory. We have evidence that all issues of concern are being reported and discussed with joint visits resulting and corrective action being taken. 5 Report 8044/2006 recommended that the maximum capacity of the establishment is included in the register of each laying hen establishment (Directive 2002/4/EC, Annex, point 1). The maximum capacity of the establishment is now included in all new registration requests and inspections to assess maximum capacity have been commissioned. As is already the practice in Scotland, measures have been put in place in England to verify the information on maximum capacity provided by the owner at registration by carrying out a physical measurement at the initial site inspection. In addition, the registration letter for each establishment will include a requirement for each house

10 that any changes to the house or the site are notified to Animal Health immediately. These changes would then be reflected in the register on completion of a site inspection. Communications between EMI and veterinary staff are now regarded by Animal Health as satisfactory. We have evidence that all issues of concern are being reported and discussed with joint visits resulting and corrective action being taken. The registration of laying hens will be addressed at the training event for all enforcement staff that is currently being arranged.

11 Appendix 2 FVO RECOMMENDATIONS TABLE MISSION DG (SANCO) No. FVO Recommendation 1 Exchange of information with other Member States is effective, as required by Directive 89/608/EEC and as indicated in Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 1/ Training, as required by Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, is updated to take account of the requirements introduced by Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 and to ensure that CA staff are trained to check drivers records as required by Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1/ Transporters, including those already authorised, have suitably approved vehicles, as required by Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 and the contingency plans, required by Article 11 (1)(b)(iv) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 and which transporters gave an undertaking to produce at the time of authorisation, are assessed in relation to their appropriateness for dealing with emergencies. Response There is now an effective system in place to exchange information with other member states. Food and Farming Group (FFG) acts as the UK contact point for other Member States and is contactable via a shared mailbox. The FVO Mission was shown evidence that the system is in place and is operating effectively. Animal Health (AH) staff are aware of the notification process and the Animal Health Operations Manual contains guidance on these processes. Our response on this issue was provided in the answer to question 4.3 of the 2009 Mission questionnaire. We are aware that a number of transporters were granted Type 2 approvals without evidence of vehicle approval in the interim period after Regulation 1/2005 came into force. However, as previously reported, enforcement inspections include documentary checks at which a valid vehicle approval certificate must be produced. In addition, the first round of transporter authorisation re-approvals will begin in late 2011, which will require transporters to submit a valid vehicle approval certificate before the authorisation can be re-approved. AH have in place procedures for assessing contingency plans of transporters operating between fixed geographic locations (e.g. ferry operators) as part of the approval process. AH and FFG believe that similar plans for road transporters provide little value since road transporters cannot know at the time of their application, all of the detail of potential future journeys they may make as these are subject to commercial decisions made nearer the time of each journey and, moreover, such a requirement conflicts with our Better Regulation initiatives being implemented within the UK which look to ease the regulatory burden on our industry in general. However, AH and FFG recognise the need to ensure that transporters have in place suitable contingency plans. We are encouraging a pro-active approach in the UK industry to considering, understanding and maintaining appropriate contingency plans. AH and FFG are liaising with industry to develop a set of contingency principles to consider when formulating plans. Once agreement is reached, we will be introducing an on-going system of checking contingency plans when journey logs are submitted for assessment and issue.

12 This involves a percentage check on all contingency plans, with additional checks involving any high risk journeys. Animal Health will amend its Operations Manual accordingly. 4 Means of transport, including those which have been approved for long journeys by road, have appropriate watering equipment, and as required by Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 Annex I Chapter VI point 2.3 that drinking devices are connected to the water tanks. Vehicles should met the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 Annex I Chapter III point 1.4(a) in relation to the inclination of ramps. 5 Arrangements are in place so that where there are delays at ports or emergency measures are needed to deal with non-compliances detected, the CA can take any necessary actions to safeguard animal welfare, including the possibility to unload animals in suitable accommodation, as required by Article 22 (2) and 23 (2)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1/ A system is in place so that journey times through livestock markets comply with the requirements of Chapter V of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1/ The movement of animals from slaughterhouses, in particular in Scotland, complies with point 8 of Chapter III of Section II of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 854/ That there are effective ways of imposing sanctions which are proportionate and dissuasive as required by Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005. Our response on the issue of watering devices was sent in December 2008 and on ramp angles in the September 2009 mission. Arrangements are in place including the need for transporters to include such issues as part of their contingency plans including transporters having confirmation that a sailing will take place before animals are loaded at the point of the journey s origin or a control post. As previously reported, the provision of suitable accommodation at ports such as a control post is subject to market forces and not direct control by the competent authority. There remains no legal mechanism to facilitate the establishment of suitable facilities. However, together with the increased checks at loading and improved coordination of supervision, we expect there to be little or no need to unload animals at ports in future. Regulation 1/2005 does not make allowances for the UK livestock market system. The principle difficulty being that time at markets counts as part of the journey time and the length of time animals spend at markets means that journey time limits are very often reached at markets or shortly after leaving them. Our solution to this is a pragmatic system, which allows journeys to be completed within stipulated journey times whilst providing animals with sufficient time to be rested, watered and fed. A flowchart detailing this system was provided during the 2008 Transport Mission. Our response on this issue was provided in the answer to question 9.7 of the 2009 Mission questionnaire. FFG in consultation with AH has published an enforcement protocol designed to provide transparent, and enable proportionate regulatory enforcement of Regulation 1/2005. The protocol has been successfully implemented into Animal Health s standard operational procedures. This document is publicly available and can be seen on the Defra website at: AH s Performance Monitoring team will be providing statistics on the numbers of animals transported, levels of compliance checks and enforcement actions taken. This will form

13 part of future Annual Returns